The?Heroic?Age?of?New?York?Movie?Theaters

I have spent large chunks of my life in repertory movie theaters. Coming to cinephilia at the height of auteurism, and being both an auteurist and a completist, eager to see all of my favorite directors’ works, I would track down obscure titles, like The Model and the Marriage Broker during my George Cukor phase, or Two Guys in Manhattan by the ever-cherished Jean-Pierre Melville. Often, these minor films were not that great, but they taught me something about a master’s artistic range and development. (And sometimes they were very great, like Kenji Mizoguchi’s Miss Oyu). Since I knew that these rarities typically had short runs, perhaps only a day, I would scan the listings of the repertory movies theaters for revivals and prepare to pounce. In this wise, I haunted The Thalia, The New Yorker, The Charles, Theatre 80 St. Marks, The Regency, The Elgin, The Bleecker Street Cinema, The Film Forum, and many another venue that revived older films. Of course, I still kept up with the new releases, but my first concern was to fill in the gaps.

A new study by Ben Davis, Repertory Movie Theaters of New York City: Havens for Revivals, Indies and the Avant-Garde, 1960-1994, with copious photographs, has just been published. I confess I approached it with trepidation, fearing it would get wrong somehow the passion to which I had given so much time and energy, rather like going to a mass political demonstration and coming home to see it distorted in the nightly news. I also worried that this subject which was so meaningful to me would not matter much to the reading public; and in seeing it thus diminished, I would realize that I had wasted my life. Not that I would take back any of the sublime movie-going moments that I had experienced from youth to middle age; just that I would be embarrassed to find myself grouped with a pack of obsessive, nerdy aesthetes, who in their prolonged-adolescent fandom had over-valued their idols and mistaken the shadow for the act.

As it turns out, Davis has done a superb job (I was almost disappointed not to be disappointed) of capturing the phenomenon of New York repertory movie theaters and placing it in historical context. His prose is clear, intelligent, engaging; his anecdotal examples colorful and often humorous; his research impeccably extensive and his facts for the most part accurate. He has interviewed everyone on the scene who is still alive—even me (the index shows I am quoted fourteen times, although I have but a dim recollection of being interviewed.) Davis has divided the book into a first wave, taking us through the Sixties, with separate chapters on Dan Talbot’s New Yorker, Lionel Rogosin’s Bleecker Street Cinema, Walter Langsford and Edwin Stein Jr.’s Charles, and Martin and Ursula Lewis’s Thalia in its first incarnation, followed by a second wave, from the Seventies on, focusing on Chuck Zlatkin and Steve Gould’s Elgin, Howard Otway’s Theatre 80 St. Marks, Frank Rowley’s Regency, The Thalia reborn under Richard Schwarz, and Sid Geffen and Jackie Raynal’s Carnegie Hall Cinema.

The peculiarities of each of these owners and their venues are duly noted: Rowley’s meticulous presentation of MGM classics, including stationing underlings to clap at the end of big musical numbers; Schwarz’s temper tantrums and love of B-movies, The Thalia’s impossibly parabolic slope and permeable acoustics, The Bleecker Street’s tendency to run behind schedule, so that its small lobby was often packed with disgruntled queues, Theatre 80’s odd, fuzzy rear-view projection, Sid Geffen’s imperial schemes in complete disregard of his lack of capital.… Overall, these pioneers come across as a bunch of wildly idealistic missionaries, lovers of film much more interested in spreading the gospel of cinema than in making money. They took chances, they played hunches, they went against the grain of commercial conformity, they artfully constructed balanced double bills, they connived to get their hands on the best possible prints. And eventually, most of them went under.

“It was not the VCR revolution that did the theater in,” Davis explains, “but the real estate revolution. Much like the closing of the Elgin, the Bleecker’s closing pitted a real estate developer who saw the property as a profitable investment against a theater owner who treasured it as a cultural resource. It was a doomed struggle.”

Since the book is structured along a rise-and-fall arc, it concludes with a brief chapter that finds faint signs of revival in the “microcinemas”—casual venues such as Rooftop Films, Light Industry and Union Docs—which have sprung up recently. Myself, I do not think we need lament so lachrymosely the decline of the repertory houses, since new ones such as the Metrograph and the renovated Quad keep appearing, the venerable Film Forum keeps chugging along, and the nonprofit institutions, such as MoMA, the Film Society of Lincoln Center, the Museum of the Moving Image, Japan Society, BAM, and the Asia Society, do a bang-up job of presenting new and old global cinema. Probably every intriguing new film will pass through New York at one point or another, and the city continues to rank with Paris as the premier place for watching movies. Added to these showcases, the digital distributers and broadcasters like FilmStruck, the Criterion Collection, and Turner Classic Movies have done a remarkable job of rescuing worthy old films.

What has changed, then, is not much the opportunity to see good films but the way they are packaged. In brief, we have gone from a time in the Sixties when the emphasis was placed on making a more or less agreed-upon canon available to the novice film buff, to a smorgasbord of “edgy” hors d’oeuvres and a neglect of the meat-and-potatoes classics. This trend began with the rediscovery of film noir and pre-Code Hollywood, then extended to “bad movies” seasons featuring the likes of Ed Wood, to J-horror, giallo softcore porn, sexual or ethnic identity niche packages, and so forth. All of these fringe subgenres have value in filling out the capaciousness of cinema, but the result is that it is now easier to see a sadistic gore-fest like Takashi Miike’s Ichi the Killer than the transcendently compassionate works of Max Ophuls, or a Mario Brava psychological horror film (good as those are) than the masterworks of John Ford. Many of the old Thalia/New Yorker staples rarely get projected: Hollywood Seventies movies seem to have replaced the second-tier classics by G.W. Pabst, Marcel Carné, V.I. Pudovkin, Rouben Mamoulian, René Clair, Robert Flaherty, Jacques Feyder, Julien Duvivier…

Paradoxically, it was the inventive enterprise of the repertory movie theaters in rescuing neglected or forgotten films that helped undermine the old secure narrative about the development of film art, from Griffith to German Expressionism to the Soviet montage directors to the French Poetic Cinema. But not to worry: it is still possible to track down anything and everything, provided one has sufficient patience. Meanwhile, Ben Davis has performed an extremely useful service in recapturing this piece of the endangered past and arguing for its importance as a living archive that preserved the history of movies as an art form.

For me, also, the book has been a poignant, thrilling, and at times painful walk down Memory Lane. It made me recall showing Jonas Mekas in the Charles lobby the schedule for the film program I had organized as an undergraduate at Columbia, and his sniffing at my inclusion of Henry King’s The Gunfighter, saying I would have done better to exhibit Edgar G. Ulmer’s The Naked Dawn (which happened to be playing that night at the Charles). I remember taking a date to see Mizoguchi’s The Crucified Lovers at The New Yorker and being so bowled over by its tragic beauty, while she was somewhat mystified by my enthusiasm, that I knew there was no hope for our affair. I remember taking another date to Theatre 80 St. Mark’s for its ritual New Year’s Eve champagne show; it was Preston Sturges’s Unfaithfully Yours, and the movie if not the champagne was completely satisfying. I remember writing articles for The Thousand Eyes, the Carnegie Hall Cinema’s ambitious rag, and someone sending in an angry letter attacking me for clinging to narrative film. I remember my itch to work at a repertory theater, which led me to apply for a job with Ursula Lewis, the owner of The Thalia who was looking for a programmer for her uptown theater, the Heights. Needless to say, I didn’t impress her with my unprofitable schemes for showing obscure back titles of minor auteurs like Paul Wendkos and Gerd Oswald.

Finally, I remember Dan Talbot, by this point a friend, dissuading me from my dream of hiring on with him: “Phillip, it’s not glamorous being an assistant manager of a movie house. You end up having to roust overdosed junkies in the toilet or mopping up their vomit.” The image has stayed with me.

Empire Cinema




?著作權(quán)歸作者所有,轉(zhuǎn)載或內(nèi)容合作請(qǐng)聯(lián)系作者
  • 序言:七十年代末和悦,一起剝皮案震驚了整個(gè)濱河市鲫懒,隨后出現(xiàn)的幾起案子固阁,更是在濱河造成了極大的恐慌硕蛹,老刑警劉巖饶套,帶你破解...
    沈念sama閱讀 217,509評(píng)論 6 504
  • 序言:濱河連續(xù)發(fā)生了三起死亡事件讶凉,死亡現(xiàn)場(chǎng)離奇詭異艾少,居然都是意外死亡副渴,警方通過查閱死者的電腦和手機(jī),發(fā)現(xiàn)死者居然都...
    沈念sama閱讀 92,806評(píng)論 3 394
  • 文/潘曉璐 我一進(jìn)店門刁赦,熙熙樓的掌柜王于貴愁眉苦臉地迎上來娶聘,“玉大人,你說我怎么就攤上這事甚脉⊥枭” “怎么了?”我有些...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 163,875評(píng)論 0 354
  • 文/不壞的土叔 我叫張陵牺氨,是天一觀的道長(zhǎng)狡耻。 經(jīng)常有香客問我墩剖,道長(zhǎng),這世上最難降的妖魔是什么夷狰? 我笑而不...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 58,441評(píng)論 1 293
  • 正文 為了忘掉前任岭皂,我火速辦了婚禮,結(jié)果婚禮上沼头,老公的妹妹穿的比我還像新娘爷绘。我一直安慰自己,他們只是感情好进倍,可當(dāng)我...
    茶點(diǎn)故事閱讀 67,488評(píng)論 6 392
  • 文/花漫 我一把揭開白布土至。 她就那樣靜靜地躺著,像睡著了一般猾昆。 火紅的嫁衣襯著肌膚如雪陶因。 梳的紋絲不亂的頭發(fā)上,一...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 51,365評(píng)論 1 302
  • 那天垂蜗,我揣著相機(jī)與錄音楷扬,去河邊找鬼。 笑死贴见,一個(gè)胖子當(dāng)著我的面吹牛毅否,可吹牛的內(nèi)容都是我干的。 我是一名探鬼主播蝇刀,決...
    沈念sama閱讀 40,190評(píng)論 3 418
  • 文/蒼蘭香墨 我猛地睜開眼螟加,長(zhǎng)吁一口氣:“原來是場(chǎng)噩夢(mèng)啊……” “哼!你這毒婦竟也來了吞琐?” 一聲冷哼從身側(cè)響起捆探,我...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 39,062評(píng)論 0 276
  • 序言:老撾萬榮一對(duì)情侶失蹤,失蹤者是張志新(化名)和其女友劉穎站粟,沒想到半個(gè)月后黍图,有當(dāng)?shù)厝嗽跇淞掷锇l(fā)現(xiàn)了一具尸體,經(jīng)...
    沈念sama閱讀 45,500評(píng)論 1 314
  • 正文 獨(dú)居荒郊野嶺守林人離奇死亡奴烙,尸身上長(zhǎng)有42處帶血的膿包…… 初始之章·張勛 以下內(nèi)容為張勛視角 年9月15日...
    茶點(diǎn)故事閱讀 37,706評(píng)論 3 335
  • 正文 我和宋清朗相戀三年助被,在試婚紗的時(shí)候發(fā)現(xiàn)自己被綠了。 大學(xué)時(shí)的朋友給我發(fā)了我未婚夫和他白月光在一起吃飯的照片切诀。...
    茶點(diǎn)故事閱讀 39,834評(píng)論 1 347
  • 序言:一個(gè)原本活蹦亂跳的男人離奇死亡揩环,死狀恐怖,靈堂內(nèi)的尸體忽然破棺而出幅虑,到底是詐尸還是另有隱情丰滑,我是刑警寧澤,帶...
    沈念sama閱讀 35,559評(píng)論 5 345
  • 正文 年R本政府宣布倒庵,位于F島的核電站褒墨,受9級(jí)特大地震影響炫刷,放射性物質(zhì)發(fā)生泄漏。R本人自食惡果不足惜郁妈,卻給世界環(huán)境...
    茶點(diǎn)故事閱讀 41,167評(píng)論 3 328
  • 文/蒙蒙 一浑玛、第九天 我趴在偏房一處隱蔽的房頂上張望。 院中可真熱鬧噩咪,春花似錦顾彰、人聲如沸。這莊子的主人今日做“春日...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 31,779評(píng)論 0 22
  • 文/蒼蘭香墨 我抬頭看了看天上的太陽涂屁。三九已至书在,卻和暖如春,著一層夾襖步出監(jiān)牢的瞬間拆又,已是汗流浹背儒旬。 一陣腳步聲響...
    開封第一講書人閱讀 32,912評(píng)論 1 269
  • 我被黑心中介騙來泰國(guó)打工, 沒想到剛下飛機(jī)就差點(diǎn)兒被人妖公主榨干…… 1. 我叫王不留帖族,地道東北人栈源。 一個(gè)月前我還...
    沈念sama閱讀 47,958評(píng)論 2 370
  • 正文 我出身青樓,卻偏偏與公主長(zhǎng)得像竖般,于是被迫代替她去往敵國(guó)和親甚垦。 傳聞我的和親對(duì)象是個(gè)殘疾皇子,可洞房花燭夜當(dāng)晚...
    茶點(diǎn)故事閱讀 44,779評(píng)論 2 354

推薦閱讀更多精彩內(nèi)容

  • **2014真題Directions:Read the following text. Choose the be...
    又是夜半驚坐起閱讀 9,495評(píng)論 0 23
  • 闌珊藏月影涣雕, 孤軒映寒光艰亮。 烏啼晚行客, 塵袍半風(fēng)霜挣郭。 感慨前路近迄埃, 猶恐自滄桑。 不見家何處兑障, 欹枕煙雨涼侄非。
    忘千愁閱讀 350評(píng)論 0 0
  • 想著七七晚上臨別時(shí)的諄諄教導(dǎo),不知不覺陷入了無限的感慨流译。 關(guān)于未來么逞怨?這個(gè)話題以前和我聊得最多的應(yīng)該是苑博和萬皮了...
    夏個(gè)夏天閱讀 291評(píng)論 0 1
  • 今天平安夜才記起給父親打電話,電話接通后聽到父親慈祥的聲音福澡,父親祝我平安夜快樂骇钦!問我吃了蘋果沒?晚上上班路上注...
    深夜小廚娘閱讀 271評(píng)論 0 0